Strong-arming gun makers to act against their perceived business interests, as well as those of their customers:
…in retrospect, there were a few clues that Spitzer was eying a job whose duties include managing the city’s pension funds…
In December, after the school massacre in Newtown, Conn., Spitzer wrote a column in the online publication Slate arguing that pension funds should use their investing clout to pressure corporations such as gunmakers to act in the public interest.
New York City’s comptroller, Spitzer said in the interview, is “a significant player in terms of the pension funds and how those shares are voted. And when I speak with folks about corporate governance, the missing link in all of this has been ownership.”
Eliot Spitzer has long been a key player in efforts to intimidate lawful gun manufacturers through both strained litigation theories and hamhanded attempts at economic pressure. The NYC comptroller’s office, with its sway over billions in pension fund money, would present him with a large sandbox indeed.
4 Comments
Bets on “no good”?
Since, as you point out, gun-makers who go along with Spitzer’s demands would be acting against their own financial interests, one would think that both Spitzer, and any CEOs who comply, would be wide open to suits from anyone with money in NYC’s pension fund who thinks he lost money as a result. It could even constitute fraud by Spitzer and the city. I can’t wait for such a case to go to trial.
[…] Olson has a much more likely explanation: Strong-arming gun makers to act against their perceived business interests, as well as those of […]
[…] with folks about corporate governance, the missing link in all of this has been ownership.” (What Spitzer might be up to as NYC comptroller, […]